I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
(Case C-438/16 P) (<span class="super note-tag">1</span>)
((Appeal - State aid - State aid scheme implemented by France - Unlimited State guarantee conferred on the Institut français du pétrole (IFP) by the grant of the status of publicly owned industrial and commercial establishment (EPIC) - Decision declaring that measure as partially not constituting State aid and as partially constituting State aid compatible with the Internal market, subject to certain conditions - Concept of ‘aid scheme’ - Presumption of the existence of an advantage - Burden and standard of proof))
(2018/C 408/04)
Language of the case: French
Appellant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and D. Grespan, acting as Agents)
Other parties to the proceedings: French Republic (represented by: D. Colas and J. Bousin, acting as Agents), IFP Énergies nouvelles (represented by: E. Morgan de Rivery and E. Lagathu, avocats)
The Court:
1.Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 26 May 2016, France and IFP Énergies nouvelles v Commission (T-479/11 and T-157/12, EU:T:2016:320), in so far as, by that judgment, the General Court annulled Article 1(3), (4) and (5) and Articles 2 to 12 of Commission Decision 2012/26/EU of 29 June 2011 on State aid granted by France to the Institut Français du Pétrole (Case C 35/08 (ex NN 11/08));
2.Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;
3.Reserves the costs.
(<span class="note">1</span>) OJ C 392, 24.10.2016.